Asylum 'Amnesty' To Clear Backlog Of 90,000 Claims

[The_DADDY]

More than 12,000 migrants from five countries with highest asylum success rates will have applications processed without interviews

Asylum seekers will be given the right to live in the UK without having face-to-face interviews to check their claims under government plans to reduce the backlog of cases.

 

 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/02/23/asylum-amnesty-clear-backlog-90000-claims/

 

Your thoughts?

[Al Bundy]

The government and no one else is to blame for this mess.

[butlers]

What with the NI situation being semi resolved it's nice to have a grown up government again

[Axe]

18 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

More than 12,000 migrants from five countries with highest asylum success rates will have applications processed without interviews

Asylum seekers will be given the right to live in the UK without having face-to-face interviews to check their claims under government plans to reduce the backlog of cases.

 

 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/02/23/asylum-amnesty-clear-backlog-90000-claims/

 

Your thoughts?

A ludicrous decision.

[bassett one]

well they can say we sorted that problem ,but at least it will help give us workers as the shortage now is awfull but bet theres no thought of housing ,schools ect,all the tories fault no one else to blame

[ECCOnoob]

Provided the relevant checks and balances are being done - any efficiency drives surely must be a good thing.

 

Whilst the rabid right wing politicos and certain tabloids will be having a field day with this one -  fact is the IND or whatever they are called these days can be just as inefficient and backward thinking as as any other government department.

 

It will be filled with lots of outdated procedures, stuck in the mud civil servants, lethargic attitudes, duplication and wastage.  

 

Having had a little bit of exposure to immigration law nearly 20 years ago it was bureaucratic, sluggish and inefficient back then.  God knows how much worse it would have become over the years.

 

If it's been established that these face to face interviews were not really making much impact on the substantive decision making process on certain categories of application, why bother?   If there is a clear and distinct pattern that, despite all the long winded process, a certain number of countries were getting a significant number of applications granted, why shouldn't there be some considerations on streamlining?

 

After all, these interviews and protracted communications use resources and cost money.

 

I am well aware that there are translation firms or local friends of friends self-employed interpreters whose whole business models have blossomed from raking it in for years on the government departments or immigration lawyers gravy train.

 

Times evolve. Procedures evolve. I have no doubt there is some element of electioneering being a contributor, but ultimately if it helps clear the backlog, why not?

 

Not so long ago everyone had default face to face interactions with their doctors or their bankers or their lawyers or their employers.  Now such fact finding or interaction or decision making is  still being done just as much, but without necessarily the face to face.   Why shouldn't certain types of asylum decision follow the same pattern and be made on paper.  

Edited March 2, 2023 by ECCOnoob

[The_DADDY]

1 minute ago, ECCOnoob said:

Provided the relevant checks and balances are being done - any efficiency drives surely must be a good thing.

Whilst the rabid right wing politicos and certain tabloids

Snipped.

🥱 

[ECCOnoob]

13 hours ago, The_DADDY said:

🥱

Wow. That's a real thorough, rational and well written counter arguement.

 

You seem to portray yourself as chief mass debater who starts all these threads.  You are the one who invited my thoughts and I've given them.  Don't start getting petulant just because you don't like the answer.

 

I think it's pretty obvious how certain politicians and certain brands of the press are going to take such announcement without any sort of rational reasoning why they object to such proposal.  I think it's pretty obvious that any hint of streamlining the asylum process will be like a red rag to a bull to some.

 

Now do you have any actual comments on the points I've tried to make.

Edited March 2, 2023 by ECCOnoob

[The_DADDY]

26 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Wow. That's a real thorough, rational and well written counter arguement.

 

You seem to portray yourself as chief mass debater who starts all these threads.  You are the one who invited my thoughts and I've given them.  Don't start getting the petulant just because you don't like the answer.

 

I think it's pretty obvious how certain politicians and certain brands of the press are going to take such announcement without any sort of rational reasoning why they object to such proposal.  I think it's pretty obvious that any hint of streamlining the asylum process will be like a red rag to a bull to some.

 

Now do you have any actual comments on the points I've tried to make.

Leave out the 'rabid right wing' crap and ill be happy to chat. 

[ECCOnoob]

27 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

Leave out the 'rabid right wing' ding and ill be happy to chat. 

Oh come off it.  I also use the word politicos in my post.   I wasn't directing at you personally.

 

You're not seriously going to try deny there aren't some extreme rabid right wing politicians and campaigners who border on racist with the rhetoric and actions.    You're not seriously going to pretend that some newspaper publications and television opinionators won't be squealing with delight about this policy announcement as they can use it to fire up plenty of attention and faux outrage and controversy amongst their audience.